Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
William A. Roper, Jr.
The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Ninth District today reversed another Summary Jugment granted by a Summit County Trial Court in the case Central Mortgage Company v. Elia.  The Court found that the conclusory averment within the plaintiff's affidavit that all conditions precedent had been satisfied was insufficient to prove compliance with Section 22 of the mortgage.  Does that sound familiar?

The case is:
Central Mortgage Company v. Elia, No. 25505, 2011 Ohio 3188 (Oh.. App. 9th Dist. June 29, 2011)
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2011/2011-ohio-3188.pdf
Quote 0 0
Bill

After looking through a few Ohio cases I do think it is important to point out that the Plaintiff does seem to be getting an assignment done prior to commencement (about 30 days) but they constantly fail to plead an endorsed copy of the note, even in contested cases, they have failed to attach an endorsed copy of the note to a motion for SJ.  There are also many deficiencies in the affidavits submitted by the Plaintiffs, it's important to know the cases and rules on what makes an admissible affidavit.  Failure to raise the deficiencies in these affidavits will result in a waiver of the argument. 

Quote 0 0
Does this sound familiar? William A Roper Jr. asks....
Why yes !...it does...and for the EXACT same reason.. and exact same party (ELIA)...and just last month (May 25th)
We addressed in detail with our (May 27th) post here: OHIO judges SHOOT down predator drone

where the Ohio Ninth District reversed a Summary Judgment granted by a Summit County Trial Court in the case:
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Elia, 2011-Ohio-2499 
{¶13} This Court has recognized that “[w]here prior notice of default and/or acceleration is required by a provision in a note or mortgage instrument, the provision of notice is a condition precedent and {¶15} "The only statement ....that even hints at CitiMortgage having complied with the notice provisions ..is....that CitiMortgage “has elected to call the entire balance of said account due and payable,[.]”
Fortunately both cases TURNED on the same failure by Plaintiff...that being  ..NOTICE and condition precedent.
Both cases... specifically addresses this Plaintiff failure by citing

LaSALLE BANK, NA v. Kelly at {¶14} ...[V]iewing the motions presented by LaSalle as well as the accompanying affidavit in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, it is clear that LaSalle made no attempt to establish that it complied with paragraph 22. Kusich's affidavit does not mention whether the bank sent notice to the Kellys prior to filing suit. Therefore, we conclude that LaSalle failed to support .... the absence of a genuine issue of fact with regard to its compliance with paragraph 22.

William A Roper Jr: The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Ninth District (June 29th) reversed another Summary Judgment granted by a Summit County Trial Court in the case Central Mortgage Company v. Elia.  The Court found that the conclusory averment within the plaintiff's affidavit that all conditions precedent had been satisfied was insufficient to prove compliance with Section 22 of the mortgageDoes that sound familiar?





Quote 0 0
Write a reply...